(1.) Ext. A1 is a lease deed on 1105 for two cents of land in favour of 4th defendant Parameswaran and his father Kuttan. Kuttan died. Defendants 1 to 3 got assignment of the lessor's right. Impleading 4th defendant as the 1st defendant and the other legal representatives of Kuttan as defendants 2 to 4. O.S. 209/58 was filed by defendants 1 to 3 before the munsiff's Court, Alleppey for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. Defendants 2 to 4 remained ex parte. First defendant alone contested. The suit was decreed evidenced by Ext. B2 judgment. First defendant (fourth defendant here) alone filed appeal. Respondents were plaintiffs alone. Defendants 2 to 4 were not parties to the appeal. Appeal was allowed in part accepting the contention of the appellant based on S.106 of the Land Reforms Act. Prayer for eviction was refused. Ext. A3 is the judgment. Plaintiffs (defendants 1 to 3 here) filed S. A. 887/65 against the 1st defendant alone (D4 here). Appeal was allowed, a decree for recovery of possession was granted and as agreed to by both sides Rs, 2,500/- was paid as value of the building to the respondent in the appeal (Dl here). Ext. B1 is the judgment.
(2.) When execution was taken out, 2nd defendant and legal representative of the 4th defendant who was impleaded in execution as the additional 5th defendant filed objection and said that the decree of the High Court will not bind them. Execution Court allowed the objection. But the appellate Court set aside the order and it was confirmed by this Court in second appeal evidenced by Ext. B3 judgment.
(3.) The only person who remained available among the defendants in O.S. 209/58 to challenge the decree is the 3rd defendant in that case. It was he who filed this suit for a declaration that Ext. B1 judgment of this Court in O.S. 209/58 is null and void and not executable against him. Defendants 1 to 3 contested the claim. Both the Courts below non suited the plaintiff and hence he has come up in second appeal.